Posted on 11/29/2006 9:23:13 AM PST by Alex Murphy
pingferlater.
""It never says that."
***
Acts 16:14-15--
14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard [us]: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.
15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought [us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us.
Okay, so I think we see things in a similar light here. So why do you have such a problem with 16:16?
"Show me where it says that every person in Lydia's "household" was a believer."
***
Without faith it is impossible to please God.
So when Christ said that we must believe and be baptized in order to be saved, he meant something else? Please explain.
That's because Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of the firstborn of Moses and flung it at his feet and said "Surely a bloody husband art thou to me." Exd 4:25
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Notice it doesn't say "he that isn't Baptized is damned." Lack of belief damns you, not lack of baptism.
If one lacks belief, they will not be baptized. Since one would not be baptized without belief, showing that lack of belief condemns is sufficient to get the point across.
Why baptize infants? Simple - because the Catholic Church - the one and only Church established by Christ and built upon St Peter the Rock - says to! The should be enough reason for anyone!
Exactly! I was baptized < after > I was born again, and had professed my Faith in Jesus Christ. Before that time, I only knew "of" Jesus Christ. After accepting Him as my Savior, I knew "who" Jesus Christ was, and I knew that the sprinkle baptism that I had received as a baby would not work. After 'meeting' Jesus, I KNEW that I had to be immersed in the water to be baptized. I had already read in the Bible about Jesus going down to the river to be immersed into the water by John the Baptist. Since He did it that way, that was proof to me that I needed to do it the same way. He went down to the river when He could have told John the Baptist to fill a bowl with water and sprinkle Him, so I did it His way. I was immersed. :o)
That's obviously not true. It just holds no meaning for the person who does not believe. A Sacrament's power is in the spiritual truth it signifies, not in the ritual.
But, even my above paragraph doesn't dispose of the question of infant baptism. Nor do citations of cases where adult converts were baptized. No one disputes that adult converts should be baptized. The dispute is much more narrow - does infant baptism hold any Scriptural meaning?
Mr. Schaeffer here demonstrated a plausible Biblical argument that infant baptism would be consistent with First Century Judaism. In the Old Testament, every single covenant-sign was applied to the entire household, including children too young to comprehend its meaning. Taking into account the household baptisms in 1Corinthians and Acts, it would appear that a plausible argument can be made for infant baptism.
Based on the evidence, one cannot reject the practice out of hand. The evidence isn't overwhelming, either, however.
So? Where does it say everyone in Lydia's household pleased God?
Your citation is not on point.
Nor is it infered or plainly stated that infants shouldn't be baptized.
Act 11:14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Who is "thy house?
That doesn't mean that we can ABSOLUTELY ONLY be saved in by believing AND baptizing. You are again making the presumption that one must first believe, then one must be baptized - and that is the ONLY way to be saved. This sentence doesn't say that.
"Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost." Titus 3:5
Nothing about believing in that statement... The Holy Spirit is the operative force - not your own belief.
Regards
Who is more worthy of being received into God's family but a sinless infant? Who is more worthy of being cleansed of Original sin but a newborn child? If someone has a problem with a confession of faith by proxy of godparents, there needs to be an explanation of Jesus healing the cripple by proxy of the faith of his friends.
The notion that an infant is not worthy of being a member of God's family is just bizarre. The Holy Spirit isn't some dormant person of the Trinity, relying on you and me to come up with the magic words "I accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior" before He becomes effective. The Apostles didn't ask for tongues of fire, the Spirit came to them of His own accord.
John 3:8
The Spirit breatheth where he will; and thou hearest his voice, but thou knowest not whence he cometh, and whither he goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
LOL! It was only a matter of time!
Regards
Nowhere in the Bible is there an explicit description of the baptism of a teenager or an elderly person. Are they automatically condemned to eternal damnation? Are we to believe that Christ intended that the church he founded would be a sort of house of trivia where only those baptized after the age of 19 but before the age of 40 could be admitted?
There are at least five passages in the Bible describing the baptism of entire households; in not one single instance is there any indication that some members of the household weren't included. Similarly, in His last words spoken on this Earth to the Apostles, Christ commanded them to "teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." There's nothing in Christ's words to indicate His Apostles were to impose arbitrary age limits on this great commission.
***Nothing about believing in that statement... The Holy Spirit is the operative force - not your own belief.****
I will agree with you on that! There are several here that I constantly debate with but I will not mention them (as their fingers rest heavily over the abuse button).
I constantly hold up Cornelius who was filled with the Holy Spirit before he was baptized, and claim baptism had NOTHING to do with his salvation. Baptism came afterward.
Although I'm generally a good Presbyterian, as I get older I am having an increasing problem with infant baptism. Not for any deep theological reason, but more because many people think if they simply get baptized as a child, they are going to go to Heaven. Sort of like getting a flu shot. It doesn't work that way, but it lulls many into a false sense of spiritual security.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.